Welcome to VegasMessageBoard
It appears you are visiting our community as a guest.
In order to view full-size images, participate in discussions, vote in polls, etc, you will need to Log in or Register.

I haven't played 100,000,000 trials, but so far it's worked pretty well, IF I stop when I win, like you're supposed to.

Anyway.... the chart stops at 20 spins, with a bankroll of $3450. Does anybody know how this chart could continue for, say, 30, 40, 50 or more spins? I can't find any pattern in how those bet sizes are increasing. I get the impression it's sloppily calculated, and could be much better. Those increases in bet size, in percents, look like:

200
66
40
86
62
67
69
69

Very bizarre, especially the 40 and the 86, but it's fascinating to play with this... another point is that because each spin is independent, you don't need to use the same 7 numbers each time, another reason I suspect this is sloppily calculated.

Very bizarre, especially the 40 and the 86, but it's fascinating to play with this...

Click to expand...

It is very bizarre. But that's because this is the advanced strategy. I'm sure the basic strategies look a lot simpler. When you get to the advanced stage there's a lot more complexity involved. I prefer increasing my bet sizes based on the Fibonacci sequence so they converge to the golden ratio. The math behind why it works is complicated. But it is an advanced strategy and therefore pretty reputable.

Mike Tyson used to say that everyone has a plan until they get hit. The same holds true in warfare. The plan is ok until you get hit in the face by losing up until you reach the table max bet, then it is a KO. There are NO systems, only approaches and attitudes.

Have to agree with everyone here, but will say to plan and give it a try on your next trip. It would definitely give you something to look forward to.
Chances are you won't do much worse then without this strategy and if you do end up winning you have yourself a good story for the trip report.

Anyway.... the chart stops at 20 spins, with a bankroll of $3450. Does anybody know how this chart could continue for, say, 30, 40, 50 or more spins? I can't find any pattern in how those bet sizes are increasing.

Click to expand...

The table stops at 20 spins because at that point you are betting $100 per number which if you win would pay $3500, which is usually the limit for most tables where you can buy $1 chips (which is where the pattern starts).

And there is a pattern to it: the way this betting system works is on each spin you are betting an amount that will return what you would have lost previously, plus a small win.

So the 21st spin would be betting $130 on each of the seven numbers: that will recoup your $3450 that you started with plus the $910 you just bet (the 7x $130) and give you a $190 profit.

The 22nd spin will probably be at least $160 for the same reason: recoup the $3450+910+1120 and have a $120 profit.

So after the 20th spin the system really starts to break down and you end up wagering large sums of money just to get back to even and turn a tiny profit for the risk (on the 22nd spin you are risking $1120 just to make a $120 session profit and you only have an 18% chance of doing so).

So to ask how this system goes when you are up to 30, 40 or 50 spins is pretty irrelevant because if you had the tens of thousands of dollars you need to go to 40 spins it just seems kind of stupid to start at step 1 where you are betting with $1 chips and hoping to turn a $28 profit if one of your numbers hits.

But basically thats it: the pattern here is to bet enough so that when you hit you recoup all the money you previously wagered plus a small profit.

This system is setup for 7 numbers and so it has that 35:1 payout in there, if you set this system up using one of the outside spots, like "BLACK" as an example, then you would basically just bet enough so that you win back your wagers so far plus $1.

You can see how that is escalating so rapidly but thats the basic idea behind the "Advanced Roulette Strategy" its just that the payout of 35:1 on hitting a straight up bet reduces the curve because you are reducing the numbers you are covering and reducing your chances to hit.

Auggie - thanks, you're right. When you get past 20 spins, it starts getting really messy. The others - well, did they run simulations, or are they just talking?

For the record, I've never believed in systems, either, especially roulette systems, but I enjoy finding a good-looking system and trying to "break" it with mathematical disproof of some kind, or by running large-scale simulations. I haven't found one that survived yet. If I did, I wouldn't be typing this, I'd be floating around on my yacht in the Caribbean...

And so, I started playing with this one: I ran 50,000 20-spin games in Excel to simulate it.

Again: The original table on that website shows an average of $138 won - that is, when you hit one of your 7 numbers before the 20 spins runs out. When the 20 spins run out and you still haven't won, you've lost your $3430.

Simulation results:

Out of 50,000 20-spin games:

817 games were losses. That is, none of the 7 numbers were hit in 20 spins.

49,183 games were winners. That is, one of the 7 numbers was hit in 20 spins or less.

In each of the 817 losing games, the 3430 was lost, for total losses of 2,802,310.

For the 49,183 winning games, I used the average profit of 138, for total profits of 6,787,254. As you can see, that exceeds the losses considerably.

Later I'll run it with half a million or a million games, unless somebody comes on here and shoots it down in flames.

The only possible issue here is using that "138 average win." That's the average win from that table. Since it's all random, every result on that table has an equal chance of occurring, so is there a reason using a 138 average win wouldn't work? For the 49,183 winning games to just equal the losses, they would need an average win of only 57, which looks highly unlikely.

Surely there's a way to "break" this, but I haven't found it yet, and apparently it's over my head mathematically to do so. Anybody?

The only possible issue here is using that "138 average win." That's the average win from that table. Since it's all random, every result on that table has an equal chance of occurring, so is there a reason using a 138 average win wouldn't work? For the 49,183 winning games to just equal the losses, they would need an average win of only 57, which looks highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

You need to use the probability weighted average win, I get $47.15 which means you'd lose close to 500k in your simulation.

Well, ideally he'd use the actual outcomes from the simulation so that the numbers matched up.

Click to expand...

Ideally yes since he's already running a sim but as a shortcut this is fine. Eventually the results would converge anyway. The point was the average win he used was way off and he suspected that may have been the problem. It was, and its why he thought the sim showed the system was profitable.

Using this system, you will lose the $3430 approx. 1.7% of the time (you performed slightly above average in the simulation)

Your expected loss per iteration of the system is approx $11.31.

The weighted impacted of losing the $3430 times the likelihood of it is a loss of approx $58.46. You compare that against Kickin's number for the overall expectation.

As we said before, the "trap" of this system is assuming you have the buy in, the sole negative outcome is very infrequent (it just happens to be crushing). So someone reading that link could try it for a few hours and think they had found solid gold. Even when they got crushed they'd feel "unlucky" and think it would turn around.

Thanks for posting this site. I enjoy reading nutso roulette systems and this site has a bunch. I'm think the "$150 strategy" is pretty interesting.

Click to expand...

Since you called them nutso, I'm assuming you know, but that one is even easier to debunk. Take your expected win or loss for each number that could come up, divide it 37, and sum them all together, and you'll get a negative number.

Its the same flawed logic as the other system. You pile up frequent small wins, but go in the red due to the occasional bigger losses.

The point was the average win he used was way off and he suspected that may have been the problem. It was, and its why he thought the sim showed the system was profitable.

Click to expand...

Yes, that must be the "AHA moment." The flaw here is that the games in that table do not have equal probability of occurring. Most of the "big" wins are later in the table, and thus will occur after 10-15 or more consecutive losses. So the use of the "138" average win is incorrect, as I suspected.

People like to say "hey, go to a casino and try it out!" but this really doesn't work. Nobody's going to go into a casino and play 100,000 trials. It's a feel-good suggestion, really, however well intended.

Now, that being said.... it's clear now that as always, over time the casino will clean your clock with the occasional big loss (20 consecutive losing spins).

If you can accept that, however, recall that this is GAMBLING. In this strategy, the big loss occurs an average of once every 61 games. That's not very often.

So you have to ask yourself, are you willing to try to sneak in a few games, to see if you can win some without hitting that big loss? Remember, you only have 1 chance in 61 of hitting it. I gave it a try in a sim. I played 15 games without hitting it. My profits after each game were:

8
22
59
58
21
74
62
8
15
75
15
82
8
63
301

For a total profit of 871 units. If those were $100 units, it would be a pretty nice day. Or $500 or $1000 units... "uh, where's the high-limit room, sir?"

But I wouldn't get too excited. A couple of days ago I tried another simulated run and hit the Big Loss on the very first game. Ugh.